TazTheTerrible:Due to my workload I don't get around to playing that many games anymore, but to toss just one example in here about actual murder: Just Cause 2.

In Just Cause 2 I have fairly often run over, shot or otherwise killed innocent civilians. Rico's response? Making a quip about it ("crazy damn pedestrians!" while flooring a sports car across a crowded sidewalk is a memorable one).

Even when it concerns enemy combatants, the game encourages not just removing them as obstacles, but killing them in fun and interesting ways. Because it amuses you.

Just stop and think about that for a second.

And in this game, these actions aren't penalized, no one ever mentions me being a bit too trigger happy or that time I crashed a passenger jet (presumably loaded with civilians since I snagged it in take-off) into an oil-rig. If anything, that's your objective: cause as much chaos as possible and make this island hell on earth where anyone could at any time be killed by gangs, the military or the mad god of death and destruction that is Rico Rodriguez.

Now, do I have a problem with this? Nah. It's a great big fun game that doesn't take itself too seriously, and I'm quite capable of separating the game's fiction from reality.

But when you get right down to it, as a concept, it is downright sick if you tried to seriously draw a parallel to the real world from that game. There's no denying that this game trivializes, even glorifies casual murder. That's not too problematic under the assumption that the player can clearly distinguish fiction and reality. If anything, I'd be more worried if we only had games with "justified" killing. It would create an atmosphere of "killing is ALWAYS justified because that's all I ever play". I think it's probably not a bad thing to have the occasional completely over the top, crossing the line sort of Rico Rodriguez type to remind us that it IS fiction we're playing.

Now, personally I think adults should be trusted to not turn into psychotic murderers from playing games like this, so I don't mind them existing and even enjoy them myself on occasion (I like black humor for one). But if you ascribe at all to the notion that trivializing serious crimes is a bad thing and they should never happen as something the player can do and revel in, then either you are calling for games like this to be right out as well, or you're being hypocritical, or you haven't thought your argument all the way through.

Yeah, the ability to hijack a passenger jet and crash it into building is really too much like the very real horror of the September 11th terrorist attacks, yet this we allows the same engineered carnage because no one is actually getting hurt, it's all just a game. And considering Just Cause 2 wasn't treated any different from Call of Duty as was enjoyed by the same people in the same way, it suggests even the soldier hero worship in video games is not so noble, but a means to an end of wanton death and destruction.

I really don't like to hear this as it totally contradicts Jim's "justified violence" argument to distinguish existing video game violence from those Japanese rape-games. That I argued FOR for the past 5 pages.

The guys at penny arcade seem to be much more in tune with how "wrong" the violence is in video games:

They aren't trivialising rape saying it is equivalent to the violence in video games, they are emphasising how awful these violent video games really are and it's only due to the player being of the perspective of the protagonist doing the killing that the awfulness of this isn't immediately apparent. The perspective shift to a reasoning self-aware soldier changes that.

The question then is... if we can deal with doing this very wrong thing of all the unjustified killing in video games, could we not also deal with rape being an element in games?

Maybe two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe yes, it is bad that video games allow and even endorse such unjustified violence and murder but that is no reason for the industry to start allowing rape as well. But the point is we established that as bad as the violence is in video games it is not directly a problem, bar other personal problems (Norway killer is responsible, not video games), should not the same apply to rape in games?

Isn't it that by admitting that you can't have rape in games, you're admitting that what you do in games changes you as a person... so too all unjustified or immoral things in games should not be allowed. We might be giving ammunition to the censors.

Actually, yes, rape is all about sexual intercourse. Rape is the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. Forced sex is the tool by which the rapist asserts their dominance, which allows them to get off on imposing their will upon the victim. By definition, if there's no sex involved, it's not rape.

I said this DISCUSSION was CONCERNING rape between adults, not the issue of whether an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape or not.

The discussion was concerning rape, period. Also, there are three people you rape in rapelay, one is 10 to my knowledge. Also, statuatory rape is totally irrelevent here.

And this is the biggest, stupidest miss-wording I have ever seen

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

The word adult only exists as a way to exclude children and was entirely irrelevant unless you're saying that the rape of a child doesn't count (whether it's by an adult or another child, a 17 year old raping an 18 year old would also be excluded but yea). The "forcing" part already excludes statutory rape, the "forcing " part removes all grey area. No, he's talking about people forcing other people to have sex, the "adult" part just excludes a whole bunch of instances and I have no reason to think Jim was excluding them

Sorry, Rapelay is banned from sale in my country so I have never played it, all I know is it is about the players forcibly raping women, I didn't know one of the victims was only... jesus, you're saying she is only 10 years old. But from all I can glean short of playing the game, the game is not a case of a man grooming a little girl to persuade and manipulate her to do something sexual, not like that book/film Lolita. It's unambiguously rape, forcing sex on them, and a whole lot WORSE than something already very wrong as the victim is so very young.

She might've been 12, not absolutely positive, but yea, little girl.

No. Statutory rape *CAN* be a grey area for older teenagers either side of age-of-consent but that is NOT THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION. And it is disingenuous to bring that up in the context of rape being unambiguously a bad thing to do. He exploits the unintended confusion between "rape" and "statutory rape" where you don't want to trivialise either but the scenarios and severity are all so extremely different.

Yes but that's not forced, the "forced" part of your statement already excludes statutory rape, making the part where you're saying "adult" question as that distinction is unnecessary. You are already removing the grey area by saying

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

so the choice of words that

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

is very weird

I really do not appreciate how Aardvaarkman has tried to hijack this discussion into the irrelevant ambiguities of age of consent with older teenagers in close-age parity in a discussion about the fictional depiction of unambiguously forced rape. It is just so transparently disingenuous and trollish of Aardvaarkman.

You sorta brought it upon yourself with that remarkably poor wording choice. Like I still can't get why you wrote it like that.

And clockwork orange had a graphic rape scene (see it sometime), still an R rating.

Again their is no helping you if you don't understand how editing is done so you can see it.

As for Clockwork Orange it was before NC-17 existed and was originally rated X. Your R version is edited down.

Cut the condescending crap. They can cut away when they show rape, so it'll probably still get an m.

If they cut away properly the "rape" only occurs in your mind because you never see it happen, and for all you know it didn't.

As for Condescension, how about you go and watch the 1966 Hawaii. It was originally marketed as X for sexual content. Currently it's not rated. Put simply, everyone who went to see it for the sex was greatly disappointed.

Is rape worse than killing your opponent in combat? Murder is UNJUSTIFIED killing.

Have you played Fable, Hitman, Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls or Prototype? Those games definitely involve murder in them.

Also the idea of "just" killing is pretty damn naive. It requires some incredible hyperbole.

"What if he ate 12 children alive." Well yes I could see how you'd want to stop them.

Otherwise the vast majority of all killings in the world at any period of time are unjust and not even close to anything otherwise.

If I had to choose between being murdered or being raped, I'd choose to be raped.

It would be terrible but I'd still be alive and frankly my life is more important than just about anything sexual or emotional. Because nothingness is the most horrifying thing and it alone has spawned religions across the entire planet.

I'm not entirely sure how something that has been essential in creating something as prolific as faith is held to a lower tier than anything else.

But either way this is not an option anyone should ever be forced to make.

How about folks just stop raping and killing and also stop mixing up pixels with actual living organisms.

If you fuck your toaster or shoot your sofa you aren't a rapist nor a killer. We need to stop equating toasters and sofa's with people.

I don't care if that Sofa looks a whole lot like a person and even has an AI, its still a damn sofa.

Again their is no helping you if you don't understand how editing is done so you can see it.

As for Clockwork Orange it was before NC-17 existed and was originally rated X. Your R version is edited down.

Cut the condescending crap. They can cut away when they show rape, so it'll probably still get an m.

If they cut away properly the "rape" only occurs in your mind because you never see it happen, and for all you know it didn't.

You can't be serious, there are many ways to indicate something is occurring without seeing it. You can have screams, a woman shouting no or the characters talking about it. Or the game can flat out say a rape has occurred.

No. Statutory rape *CAN* be a grey area for older teenagers either side of age-of-consent but that is NOT THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION. And it is disingenuous to bring that up in the context of rape being unambiguously a bad thing to do. He exploits the unintended confusion between "rape" and "statutory rape" where you don't want to trivialise either but the scenarios and severity are all so extremely different.

Yes but that's not forced, the "forced" part of your statement already excludes statutory rape, making the part where you're saying "adult" question as that distinction is unnecessary. You are already removing the grey area by saying

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

so the choice of words that

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

is very weird

I really do not appreciate how Aardvaarkman has tried to hijack this discussion into the irrelevant ambiguities of age of consent with older teenagers in close-age parity in a discussion about the fictional depiction of unambiguously forced rape. It is just so transparently disingenuous and trollish of Aardvaarkman.

You sorta brought it upon yourself with that remarkably poor wording choice. Like I still can't get why you wrote it like that.

It's obvious what I meant, but if you quote mine me to take spurious interpretations regardless of context then of course it is going to appear like I'm saying something "weird". There is no way, no way AT ALL you can reasonably and honestly infer I mean the horrific crime of rape can only committed against adults, how monumentally disingenuous and convoluted of BOTH of you. Only by deliberately discarding all inference and using the most narrow semantic interpretation of a sentence could you do that.

Neither Jim nor I was not defining "rape" but specifying the point of discussion. You know that. Don't pretend you don't.

Aardvaarkman repeatedly ignored the "forced" part and went of on a tangent of equivalence with statutory rape for no reason other than pedantic exploitation of semantics. THAT is weird.

I didn't want to talk about children as there are so few children in video games anyway, virtually none as protagonists for any significant portion of games time, and I didn't want to get into the issue of depiction of violence against children in video games. The issue of whether you should be able to kill children in video games is still not sorted with most going for indestructible children or other such contrivances as implausibly an entire country without any trace of children anywhere (Just Cause 2).

Plus rape or sex involving children wanders into the area of child pornography laws, there is just no reason to go there. Jim and I are talking about video games depicting rape involving adults as it is actually LEGAL to depict that. Bring children and sex together in and suddenly you've got the FBI, Interpol and all that bullshit. For the love of Jebus, I'm not saying the horrific crime of rape couldn't be perpetrated against a child, I'm just saying the depiction of it in video games in just plain NOT up for discussion here! I have made that clear from the very start.

Get that. Is that clear? Child Pornography laws are EXTREMELY strict and unforgiving, even with depiction very crude CGI sex or a simple drawing. It's just NOT part of the discussion.

CATEGORICALLY you CANNOT have graphic pedophilic rape in a video game as it would be banned as child pornography and the producers face some sort of prosecution. So there is no point in going there and that law is not changing any time soon and I don't see the point in arguing it.

Case closed. This has gone way WAY off topic to spite me repeatedly telling both of you to get back on topic and not go to this area.

Cut the condescending crap. They can cut away when they show rape, so it'll probably still get an m.

If they cut away properly the "rape" only occurs in your mind because you never see it happen, and for all you know it didn't.

You can't be serious, there are many ways to indicate something is occurring without seeing it. You can have screams, a woman shouting no or the characters talking about it. Or the game can flat out say a rape has occurred.

I'm sure your imagination treats you and people like Brian Banks very well, and all the money Gibson got because of it.

DiMono:The other thing that you didn't touch on is that in a video game, killing someone is generally very fast. You shoot them in the head, and down they go. You cut off their limbs, down they go. You fight with someone, maybe tussle with them, snap their neck and down they go. You do it quickly, and then it's over. Rape is a prolonged event. Murder in video games can be easily discarded as irrelevant because it's done and over with very quickly, but rape is something you'd have to stay focused on and actively continue to do. I'll be honest, if I was playing a game that required me to rape someone in order to progress the plot, I'd snap the disc in half and throw it out. Not only is it something I'm not prepared to do, but I don't want anyone else to have to do it either.

Same thing in multiplayer games. If I'm playing Diablo and someone kills me, I restart in town and carry on. I entered the game knowing that I might get killed, and it happened, and yes it kind of sucks but in the end it's not really that bad. If I'm playing a game and another character actually rapes me, it means the other player has to actively continue doing things to me, and I have to sit there and watch it happen, or else try to resist. Again, being killed is pretty much the way of things and it's fast, but being raped is almost exactly the opposite of that.

The irony, of course, is that the word rape has been firmly ensconced in the gamer vernacular for quite some time. Offensive or not, it's there, and odds are it always will be. And that only makes the conversation all the more confusing and awkward.

If they cut away properly the "rape" only occurs in your mind because you never see it happen, and for all you know it didn't.

You can't be serious, there are many ways to indicate something is occurring without seeing it. You can have screams, a woman shouting no or the characters talking about it. Or the game can flat out say a rape has occurred.

I'm sure your imagination treats you and people like Brian Banks very well, and all the money Gibson got because of it.

I'm sorry... but it's completely hypocritical to demonize rape over death. I will never view rape as being more evil than death. In death, there IS nothing else, it's the ultimate end, the cardinal sin. I figured the point that would be made with this video is that they're both evil, shut your mouths, they're just fantasy. What I ended up with was an 8 minute rant of why it's better to kill someone than to rape.

I'll tell you this, I'd be more frightened of someone that fantasizes of murder over rape. It's not because I'm a guy, it's because you're sitting there dreaming about mutilating someone, causing them pain, taking their right to life from them. At least in rape they're still alive. Emotionally and psychologically traumatized, but they're still alive. They still have friends, they can still pursue goals, they can still LIVE. I will not defend rape as being acceptable though, but I do believe they're both just as evil.

Yes, there ARE victims in murder and death. It's the dead corpse laying in front of you. That father will never see his children again. That woman will have to be laid to rest by her parents, something no parent should ever have to do. You're forgetting that death also effects EVERYONE around the person that was killed. Rape? It leaves one person traumatized too, but killing rips through family, friends, co-workers, everyone this person knew, and the fact you try to make death far more acceptable than rape is terrifying.

It's exactly why us, as a people, suddenly believe that sex is far more evil than showing someone getting their brains blown out on TV. God help you if a nipple shows, but if someone snaps their leg, hey hey! It's so damn funny! A game about crime and murder like Grand Theft Auto is ok... but add "Hot Coffee", and suddenly it's Adults Only? No. No. I find it so hard to put into words just how wrong that is, yet it's the exact same thing I always see. If you murder in real life, then you'll get a lesser sentence than if you raped. You don't have to join a list of known murderers, and tell your neighborhood that you killed someone.

Well, screw that. Me? I've been playing violent games since I could pick up a controller, all the way back into the NES days. I stopped the Alien Bomb at Mt. Demonhead for crying out loud. But so help me, I will never try to say death and murder are not lesser crimes, much less more acceptable than rape, and the fact that you find a villain that slaughters and brutalizes to be stomachable, but add rape and suddenly you're all "oh that's too far!"? I do believe there's something much more wrong with you than the people playing Rapelay.

I have never played Rapelay, I am not a rapist. I am a gamer, however, sick of seeing our bodies and sexuality demonized, yet violence and death embraced and beloved. Take that as you will, and tell me about how wrong I am, just as much as you want. It's just you grasping at the moral highground, trying to preach how evil someone else is, when you partake in something just as twisted. Me? I can live with being called twisted. I know who and what I am, and accept it. It's a shame you can't, though.

No. Statutory rape *CAN* be a grey area for older teenagers either side of age-of-consent but that is NOT THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION. And it is disingenuous to bring that up in the context of rape being unambiguously a bad thing to do. He exploits the unintended confusion between "rape" and "statutory rape" where you don't want to trivialise either but the scenarios and severity are all so extremely different.

Yes but that's not forced, the "forced" part of your statement already excludes statutory rape, making the part where you're saying "adult" question as that distinction is unnecessary. You are already removing the grey area by saying

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

so the choice of words that

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

is very weird

I really do not appreciate how Aardvaarkman has tried to hijack this discussion into the irrelevant ambiguities of age of consent with older teenagers in close-age parity in a discussion about the fictional depiction of unambiguously forced rape. It is just so transparently disingenuous and trollish of Aardvaarkman.

You sorta brought it upon yourself with that remarkably poor wording choice. Like I still can't get why you wrote it like that.

It's obvious what I meant, but if you quote mine me to take spurious interpretations regardless of context then of course it is going to appear like I'm saying something "weird". There is no way, no way AT ALL you can reasonably and honestly infer I mean the horrific crime of rape can only committed against adults, how monumentally disingenuous and convoluted of BOTH of you. Only by deliberately discarding all inference and using the most narrow semantic interpretation of a sentence could you do that.

No , I know what you meant. I'm saying the wording was awful and that's why aardvaarkman went on this tangent.

Aardvaarkman repeatedly ignored the "forced" part and went of on a tangent of equivalence with statutory rape for no reason other than pedantic exploitation of semantics. THAT is weird.

indeed it is

Plus rape or sex involving children wanders into the area of child pornography laws, there is just no reason to go there. Jim and I are talking about video games depicting rape involving adults as it is actually LEGAL to depict that. Bring children and sex together in and suddenly you've got the FBI, Interpol and all that bullshit. For the love of Jebus, I'm not saying the horrific crime of rape couldn't be perpetrated against a child, I'm just saying the depiction of it in video games in just plain NOT up for discussion here! I have made that clear from the very start.

Get that. Is that clear? Child Pornography laws are EXTREMELY strict and unforgiving, even with depiction very crude CGI sex or a simple drawing. It's just NOT part of the discussion.

CATEGORICALLY you CANNOT have graphic pedophilic rape in a video game as it would be banned as child pornography and the producers face some sort of prosecution. So there is no point in going there and that law is not changing any time soon and I don't see the point in arguing it.

Case closed. This has gone way WAY off topic to spite me repeatedly telling both of you to get back on topic and not go to this area.

Yet no one I know of has been put in any legal trouble for rapelay. I hear that authorities only really crack down on fictional child porn (in America) is when you also have a ton of real child porn and they wanna increase the charges. Although maybe there'd be more of an issue with a western publisher doing it.Rapelay is probably the whole reason this video exists to begin with. The description to this episode mentions rapelay, the facebook announcement for the video has a picture from rapelay. Rapelay massively increased the talk on the matter for a long time, with one obviously child character and one who's probably an underaged highschooler. This video likely wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the infamous game where you rape at least one, probably two underaged girls and their mother.

Yet no one I know of has been put in any legal trouble for rapelay. I hear that authorities only really crack down on fictional child porn (in America) is when you also have a ton of real child porn and they wanna increase the charges. Although maybe there'd be more of an issue with a western publisher doing it.Rapelay is probably the whole reason this video exists to begin with. The description to this episode mentions rapelay, the facebook announcement for the video has a picture from rapelay. Rapelay massively increased the talk on the matter for a long time, with one obviously child character and one who's probably an underaged highschooler. This video likely wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the infamous game where you rape at least one, probably two underaged girls and their mother.

Well your perception of poor enforcement of the law for an obscure game doesn't mean the law isn't there. And the risk of ot being enforced on a more high profile release.

The thing is most people have not played rapelay and it is not common knowledge that there is a pre-pubescent rape victim. That was never brought up and in all the reference images the older teenage girl was depicted that could be an adult. Throughout american media it is well established that a high schooler can be over the age of consent, i.e. the American Pie, Buffy, most high school dramas. Rapelay was used as mainly a visual example of a rape "game" simply for lack of a better example, I don't think anyone has any intention of tackling paedophilia as there is NO DISCUSSION there. That is totally not a non-discussion and it is so illegal or at least legally tenuous to depict.

The aspect of pedophilia in Rapelay is NOT the topic of discussion as that is an open ans shut case and likely the reason it is explicitly banned in the UK.

I can't and won't watch movies or anything that has rape in it, and I will not play a video game that has rape in it. However, I believe any medium has the right to tackle the issue, but when doing so, they must stress it is an act of violence, not a sexual act, and portray it from the victims perspective so the audience can understand their horror. I truelly believe it is immoral otherwise. Any piece of art, whether it be a video game or movie, that handles the subject as I described has my respect, even though I won't go near them. That's just me personally though. You can. It's cool.

I get the part about the genders not being equal in terms of rape statistics, but I got really rustled when Jim said that women aren't physically capable of raping.

That assumes that there is no female-on-female rape (our statistics can be underrated because it's possible that the majority of cases are not reported due to shame) and that all men are 250 pound beasts with full control on their erections.

Death makes you die. There is a lot of "murder" in videogames, not not every kill means murder. Many times there is no malice involved, just fighting back.

LHZA:I can't and won't watch movies or anything that has rape in it, and I will not play a video game that has rape in it.

Spoiler alert, I won't get into too many details but based on that description don't watch/read The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo if you haven't yet. I belched the contents of my stomach into my mouth reading a book, which was a new experience to me. I love the Millenium series but I wish someone had at least warned me.

Yet no one I know of has been put in any legal trouble for rapelay. I hear that authorities only really crack down on fictional child porn (in America) is when you also have a ton of real child porn and they wanna increase the charges. Although maybe there'd be more of an issue with a western publisher doing it.Rapelay is probably the whole reason this video exists to begin with. The description to this episode mentions rapelay, the facebook announcement for the video has a picture from rapelay. Rapelay massively increased the talk on the matter for a long time, with one obviously child character and one who's probably an underaged highschooler. This video likely wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the infamous game where you rape at least one, probably two underaged girls and their mother.

Well your perception of poor enforcement of the law for an obscure game doesn't mean the law isn't there. And the risk of ot being enforced on a more high profile release.

The thing is most people have not played rapelay and it is not common knowledge that there is a pre-pubescent rape victim. That was never brought up and in all the reference images the older teenage girl was depicted that could be an adult.

it is fairly common knowledge. Like, look at the coverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rapelay.jpg (Not a tasteful image, possibly NSFW). The girl on the right is obviously under-aged, you are obviously going to rape her if you haven't already.

Throughout american media it is well established that a high schooler can be over the age of consent, i.e. the American Pie, Buffy, most high school dramas. Rapelay was used as mainly a visual example of a rape "game" simply for lack of a better example, I don't think anyone has any intention of tackling paedophilia as there is NO DISCUSSION there. That is totally not a non-discussion and it is so illegal or at least legally tenuous to depict.

The aspect of pedophilia in Rapelay is NOT the topic of discussion as that is an open ans shut case and likely the reason it is explicitly banned in the UK.

no, there is no discussion there and there is no reason to chop it off and make a distinction at all in this context. It's as if the topic of inter-racial rape came up somehow, let's say as a scare tactic and an example on something that could be put in as hate speech in a game that should be illegal, and you said that jim was obviously talking about white on white rape (Although what you said was MUCH, MUCH more understandable , and it's much less understandable to think that you meant something malicious by it), he was talking about actual rape in general and cutting it any more than to exclude consensual statuatory rape just seems unnecessary.

The thing is most people have not played rapelay and it is not common knowledge that there is a pre-pubescent rape victim. That was never brought up and in all the reference images the older teenage girl was depicted that could be an adult.

it is fairly common knowledge. Like, look at the coverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rapelay.jpg (Not a tasteful image, possibly NSFW). The girl on the right is obviously under-aged, you are obviously going to rape her if you haven't already.

Throughout american media it is well established that a high schooler can be over the age of consent, i.e. the American Pie, Buffy, most high school dramas. Rapelay was used as mainly a visual example of a rape "game" simply for lack of a better example, I don't think anyone has any intention of tackling paedophilia as there is NO DISCUSSION there. That is totally not a non-discussion and it is so illegal or at least legally tenuous to depict.

The aspect of pedophilia in Rapelay is NOT the topic of discussion as that is an open ans shut case and likely the reason it is explicitly banned in the UK.

no, there is no discussion there and there is no reason to chop it off and make a distinction at all in this context. It's as if the topic of inter-racial rape came up somehow, let's say as a scare tactic and an example on something that could be put in as hate speech in a game that should be illegal, and you said that jim was obviously talking about white on white rape (Although what you said was MUCH, MUCH more understandable), he was talking about actual rape in general and cutting it any more than to exclude consensual statuatory rape just seems unnecessary.

I didn't see that cover in any media relating to Jim's video, nor anywhere was the paedophilia aspect covered. It remains irrelevant. Stop trying to steer this off topic.

There is no discussion in any hypothetical inter-racial aspect because only racists make the distinction of different races having sex. It's utterly trivial to me. Interracial sex is not illegal to depict. Child sex is. Your comparison is utterly irrelevant. Rapelay is not the entire crux of Jim's argument with was NOT specific to Rapelay, even if stills were used in promotion of this video. You are inferring tenuous and meaningless links.

Why are you trying to make this a discussion about pedophilia? Just drop it. You are inferring something which was NOT in the OP's video, you had to go OUTSIDE his video to get some tangential link to underage sex.

The thing is most people have not played rapelay and it is not common knowledge that there is a pre-pubescent rape victim. That was never brought up and in all the reference images the older teenage girl was depicted that could be an adult.

it is fairly common knowledge. Like, look at the coverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rapelay.jpg (Not a tasteful image, possibly NSFW). The girl on the right is obviously under-aged, you are obviously going to rape her if you haven't already.

Throughout american media it is well established that a high schooler can be over the age of consent, i.e. the American Pie, Buffy, most high school dramas. Rapelay was used as mainly a visual example of a rape "game" simply for lack of a better example, I don't think anyone has any intention of tackling paedophilia as there is NO DISCUSSION there. That is totally not a non-discussion and it is so illegal or at least legally tenuous to depict.

The aspect of pedophilia in Rapelay is NOT the topic of discussion as that is an open ans shut case and likely the reason it is explicitly banned in the UK.

no, there is no discussion there and there is no reason to chop it off and make a distinction at all in this context. It's as if the topic of inter-racial rape came up somehow, let's say as a scare tactic and an example on something that could be put in as hate speech in a game that should be illegal, and you said that jim was obviously talking about white on white rape (Although what you said was MUCH, MUCH more understandable), he was talking about actual rape in general and cutting it any more than to exclude consensual statuatory rape just seems unnecessary.

I didn't see that cover in any media relating to Jim's video, nor anywhere was the paedophilia aspect covered. It remains irrelevant. Stop trying to steer this off topic.

There is no discussion in any hypothetical inter-racial aspect because only racists make the distinction of different races having sex. It's utterly trivial to me. Interracial sex is not illegal to depict. Child sex is. Your comparison is utterly irrelevant. Rapelay is not the entire crux of Jim's argument with was NOT specific to Rapelay, even if stills were used in promotion of this video. You are inferring tenuous and meaningless links.

Why are you trying to make this a discussion about pedophilia? Just drop it. You are inferring something which was NOT in the OP's video, you had to go OUTSIDE his video to get some tangential link to underage sex.

The cover was in jim's video. 1:26-1:28.

I'm not trying to make the discussion about pedophillia, I'm trying to explain why your mis-statement caused it.There should be no specific mentions of pedophillia either, it's a distinction that serves no purpose in this context from any other rape. It's not about adults raping adults, it's about people raping people. I'm saying the distinction is as meaningless as the hypothetical inter-racial aspect.

Been watching these for a while, first time actually making a post on one. No real comment on any of the hot back-and-forth going on right now: Thoughtful speculation on some, differing opinion on others. Just wanted to say, while it may not have covered ALL the moral intricacies, ALL the specific scenarios, etc, etc., I felt this video to be an exemplary eight minutes on such broad and tricky subject matter.

I came to this site for Zero Punctuation and all the shenanigans and critiques Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw has to offer on video games. But it's stuff like this in Jimquisition (along with the lighter topics and other material such a Movie Bob) that compels me to stay and keep watching. This video has verbalized and changed my outlook on this topic. Thank you very much for creating it, and I look forward to your future videos! Forgive my intrusion in the discussion.

The self-defense angle, I must admit, while glaringly obvious, was something I never thought about as opposed to the "murder victims literally don't have to live with being killed ex post facto" dichotomy that usually gets brought up. It always irks me when I hear gamers use "rape" when they mean "got beaten" yet when I call them out on it, I freeze when they ask why "I got killed out there." or somesuch is any better, because it sounds like a trap to me, like I can't answer it without glorifying or trivializing murder. Officially, neither one should be analogized to just losing at a video game, but what was wrong with leaving it at "killing?" Why the upgrade?

I'm not trying to make the discussion about pedophillia, I'm trying to explain why your mis-statement caused it.There should be no specific mentions of pedophillia either, it's a distinction that serves no purpose in this context from any other rape. It's not about adults raping adults, it's about people raping people. I'm saying the distinction is as meaningless as the hypothetical inter-racial aspect.

You still haven't explained how my "mis-statement" caused anything. Before I even said that Aardvarkman had jumped in with the derailing "there is a grey area between statutory rape and rape", bringing in the issue of child-sex. Which is NOT what this discussion needs AT ALL and an entirely semantic ambiguity anyway!

You are the one endlessly trying to bring up that rapelay had a possibly underage victim when that is not actually pointed out in the show. That cover shown for 2 seconds, no wonder I don't remember it, and no way enough time to tell that one of them was underage with the highly stylised faces and how her body proportions were not visible. OP's video remains to NOT cover the issue of under-age sex.

"I'm saying the distinction is as meaningless"

The distinction is one that YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP of the child aspect. Now its "people raping people" is another contrived attempt at getting child rape included (people is both adults and children) in the discussion. No. Stop it. Just please stop this. Drop this derailing tangent of trying to include the depiction of child rape in games, You have been TOLD it is a non-issue as it is totally illegal so you can't even go there.

This thread is tricky enough and you are going there, THERE of all places. Have you NO TACT AT ALL!!?!?

I brought this up in the FB comments, but since this seems to be where the action is, cross-posting it is.

The answer to the reason for the double standard simple: outside of prison populations, rape victims are primarily female and murder victims are primarily male. As proof of this being the source of the double standard, consider that it is acceptable in our society's entertainment to "play rape for laughs" when the victim is male, and becomes unacceptable to "play murder for laughs" (or even sufficiently brutal violence) when the victims are female.

Think the Vince Vaughn rape scene in Wedding Crashers, or even the statutory rape of a pre-teen child in the latest Adam Sandler "movie". Could you possibly reverse the genders and play the scenes for laughs?

Likewise, think of the extreme hand-wringing over the "uneasiness" many reviewers had with Hit Girl eating a few punches in Kick-Ass, not seeming to notice that the male lead (himself still a child) was absolutely brutalized in that movie (graphically stabbed, hit by a car, tied in a chair and beaten senseless, pummeled in a 4-on-1 beating, etc.)

Incidentally, Jim, your belief that boys are not (or were not) told "not to rape" might be a cultural difference, but as a child of the 80s in North America, I most certainly WAS told "not to rape". "No means no" was a very common trend and certainly visible in culture aimed at youths.

Actually, yes, rape is all about sexual intercourse. Rape is the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. Forced sex is the tool by which the rapist asserts their dominance, which allows them to get off on imposing their will upon the victim. By definition, if there's no sex involved, it's not rape.

his problem is in the "engage in" part, not the sexual intercourse.

See, I don't think that's the case. Because he specifically said "it's physical violence that is forced upon them - not something that requires engagement in anything sexual." If you were correct, then the point he would have argued would have been force vs "engage in", but instead he argued sex vs. not sex.

Actually, the "engage in" bit is key to my argument. The point being that rape is a non-consensual activity, one that the victim has no choice in. They don't "engage in" sexual activity, it is forced upon them.

This brings up a higher-order problem - what is "sexual" and why is "sexual violence" different than other forms of violence? Does sex mean it involves genitals? What about breasts? People are sexually aroused by all manner of things. Some people have fetishes about shoes. Does that mean that shoes belong in a special category so they should be protected from shoe rapists?

The whole foundation of this discussion/argument lies on shaky ground when sexuality is mentioned. There are no clear definitions of sex. Our laws and our language surrounding sex are completely inadequate. One needs only to look at pornography to see that almost anything can be considered as a sexual object or subject.

Therefore, rape is very complicated. Many legal definitions of rape include acts that are considered consensual sex by the participants. Similarly, there are legal definitions of rape that exclude forced sexual violation.

In my opinion, "rape" is a type of physical assault. The fact that it's linked to "sex" is a historical artefact, because it's almost impossible to define sex. In previous historical eras, sex was much more narrowly defined. But today, sexual activity is much more widely acknowledged to encompass a huge variety of activities. For examples, in 2012, most people think that it's possible for two women to have sexual intercourse. In earlier times, that would not be considered sex because it didn't involve a penis.

Treblaine:You still haven't explained how my "mis-statement" caused anything. Before I even said that Aardvarkman had jumped in with the derailing "there is a grey area between statutory rape and rape", bringing in the issue of child-sex. Which is NOT what this discussion needs AT ALL and an entirely semantic ambiguity anyway!

Why do you refer to it as "child-sex" rather than child rape?

Semantics are rather important here, especially given that Jim offers no definition of "rape" in the video. The concept of rape is legally and culturally varied. It's pretty important to specify those terms. You seem to consider rape as only a violent act, and you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults.

My question is why you only consider rape in such narrow terms, when the reality is that it's a lot more complex. Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised.

Treblaine:Now its "people raping people" is another contrived attempt at getting child rape included (people is both adults and children) in the discussion. No. Stop it. Just please stop this. Drop this derailing tangent of trying to include the depiction of child rape in games, You have been TOLD it is a non-issue as it is totally illegal so you can't even go there.

Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal. You're really not making any sense here.

I'm kinda surprised Jim didn't really address how rape is usually portrayed as enjoyable to the perpetrator. He kinda touched on it or maybe implied it, but to me its one of the most notable reasons why killing in a video game is more palatable than rape. Of course someone could enjoy murder too, and that person seems sleazier than someone who does it out of necessity or apathy, but when I think about it I usually think of someone who is trying to satisfy an urge, in other words, doing it for enjoyment. Also take a look at this for some comic relief: http://www.cracked.com/video_18193_white-people-rapping-about-rape-what-could-go-wrong-5Bdnc5D.html

Treblaine:You still haven't explained how my "mis-statement" caused anything. Before I even said that Aardvarkman had jumped in with the derailing "there is a grey area between statutory rape and rape", bringing in the issue of child-sex. Which is NOT what this discussion needs AT ALL and an entirely semantic ambiguity anyway!

Why do you refer to it as "child-sex" rather than child rape?

Semantics are rather important here, especially given that Jim offers no definition of "rape" in the video. The concept of rape is legally and culturally varied. It's pretty important to specify those terms. You seem to consider rape as only a violent act, and you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults.

My question is why you only consider rape in such narrow terms, when the reality is that it's a lot more complex. Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised.

Treblaine:Now its "people raping people" is another contrived attempt at getting child rape included (people is both adults and children) in the discussion. No. Stop it. Just please stop this. Drop this derailing tangent of trying to include the depiction of child rape in games, You have been TOLD it is a non-issue as it is totally illegal so you can't even go there.

Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal. You're really not making any sense here.

"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape". Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.

It is a FALLACY to argue from semantics. Your link between "rape" and "statutory rape" is entirely based on the semantics of the word "rape" not how 17 year old and 18 year old having sex is equivalent to - for example - a kind of rape as depicted in the rape scene in Deliverance.

Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.

"you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults."

Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.

"Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised."

I did make clear the threats may not be direct or immediate, but still the threat of force, anything that defies their ability to consent. Such as an interrogator demanding sex or else be sent out to a firing squad or be tortured later. And of course being unconscious or paralysed. Either way, I made clear that is follows the unambiguous definition of sex without or against their consent.

"Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal."

Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.

Crimsom Storm:I'm sorry... but it's completely hypocritical to demonize rape over death. I will never view rape as being more evil than death. In death, there IS nothing else, it's the ultimate end, the cardinal sin. I figured the point that would be made with this video is that they're both evil, shut your mouths, they're just fantasy. What I ended up with was an 8 minute rant of why it's better to kill someone than to rape.

Jim's point was not just that rape is inherently "worse" than murder (which, yes, is potentially debatable, though we aren't going to get into that). The thing about portraying murder is a murder victim is not going to play a game and be given violent flashbacks. But a rape victim will. The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

As explained in that article I linked there, it isn't just about a horrible thing being shown. It's about the people who have suffered that trauma being reminded of that horrible event, and most often in video games that reminder was totally unnecessary. The problem with rape and murder isn't which is more awful. The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions. It's no less insensitive than setting off firecrackers under the seat of a soldier who's just come back from the front lines. And the biggest problem with it is that so many think that because you can't know when a victim is around, that makes it okay. The way I see it, that's even more of a reason to be very careful how games use rape, and how we talk about it in games.

Until that article, I was convinced there was a right way the new Tomb Raider game could approach the attempted rape of Lara Croft. But now, after reading that person's account and re-reading the producer's apparent reason for it, I'm not so sure anymore. Of course we'll have to wait for the game to be sure, but at this point things are not looking good.

Treblaine:"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape".

I wasn't talking about statutory rape, I was talking about the depiction of very young girls being raped, as is the case with these "rape games".

Treblaine:Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.

I never said that sex automatically meant consent. I also never said that rape couldn't involve sex.

No it isn't. Semantics are integral to intelligent discussions. What's the problem with your caps-lock key?

Treblaine:Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.

There's plenty of ambiguity abut rape, even without statutory codes. That's why these discussions are so difficult.

Treblaine:Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.

Actually, you did. You said that Jim was only talking about rape between adults. Yet Jim never actually says that in the video. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Treblaine:Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.

No, I do not know "full well" that is what you meant. Why is it that rape involving children should not be discussed here? You explicitly claimed that Jim was only talking about adult rape. Are you Jim's spokesperson?

I also did not know that the depiction of child rape is illegal - would you care to cite the law that states that this is so?

mike1921: his problem is in the "engage in" part, not the sexual intercourse.

See, I don't think that's the case. Because he specifically said "it's physical violence that is forced upon them - not something that requires engagement in anything sexual." If you were correct, then the point he would have argued would have been force vs "engage in", but instead he argued sex vs. not sex.

Actually, the "engage in" bit is key to my argument. The point being that rape is a non-consensual activity, one that the victim has no choice in. They don't "engage in" sexual activity, it is forced upon them.

This brings up a higher-order problem - what is "sexual" and why is "sexual violence" different than other forms of violence? Does sex mean it involves genitals? What about breasts? People are sexually aroused by all manner of things. Some people have fetishes about shoes. Does that mean that shoes belong in a special category so they should be protected from shoe rapists?

The whole foundation of this discussion/argument lies on shaky ground when sexuality is mentioned. There are no clear definitions of sex. Our laws and our language surrounding sex are completely inadequate. One needs only to look at pornography to see that almost anything can be considered as a sexual object or subject.

Therefore, rape is very complicated. Many legal definitions of rape include acts that are considered consensual sex by the participants. Similarly, there are legal definitions of rape that exclude forced sexual violation.

In my opinion, "rape" is a type of physical assault. The fact that it's linked to "sex" is a historical artefact, because it's almost impossible to define sex. In previous historical eras, sex was much more narrowly defined. But today, sexual activity is much more widely acknowledged to encompass a huge variety of activities. For examples, in 2012, most people think that it's possible for two women to have sexual intercourse. In earlier times, that would not be considered sex because it didn't involve a penis.

Your argument is wrong from the very first line. The "engage" came from this:

"talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse."

So right from the VERY START there is absolutely no ambiguity of consent with the "force" term, with absolutely no choice at all. This is what I am talking about, you ignore EVERYTHING and focus on one word out of context and without any meaning. So transparently disingenuous.

Rape is different from other forms of violence due to the different and severe emotions from rape one that are different from other forms of assault. You have been told now.

Don't play the dunce on sexuality, it's quite clear that groping breasts and buttocks is sexual from the sexual arousal of the groper and from how the abused individual reacts to this. And no, you can't rape someone's shoe, it doesn't have ANY will or feelings of its own. The issue is not that some guy finds a shoe sexy and tries to fuck it, it is if he finds a woman arousing and forces himself on HER - a person - against her will. The issue is the victim's will.

"Therefore, rape is very complicated."

No. It is not. It's very simple: if they don't consent to sex then it is rape. Read case law on consent which is not that complicated.

"it's almost impossible to define sex."

Maximum possible physical contact seeking to elicit (but not necessarily achieving) sexual pleasure including orgasm in one or both parties. There.

Lilani:The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

That's a very poor assumption. Given the number of people living today who have survived wars, I would not be surprised if they outnumbered living rape victims.

Lilani:The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions.

Millions of people remain traumatised by World Wars 1 and 2. Plenty of people among my family and friends lost loved ones in those wars. Does that mean games depicting those wars are "asinine expressions" that take advantage of people's personal traumas?

Treblaine:"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape".

I wasn't talking about statutory rape, I was talking about the depiction of very young girls being raped, as is the case with these "rape games".

Treblaine:Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.

I never said that sex automatically meant consent. I also never said that rape couldn't involve sex.

No it isn't. Semantics are integral to intelligent discussions. What's the problem with your caps-lock key?

Treblaine:Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.

There's plenty of ambiguity abut rape, even without statutory codes. That's why these discussions are so difficult.

Treblaine:Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.

Actually, you did. You said that Jim was only talking about rape between adults. Yet Jim never actually says that in the video. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Treblaine:Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.

No, I do not know "full well" that is what you meant. Why is it that rape involving children should not be discussed here? You explicitly claimed that Jim was only talking about adult rape. Are you Jim's spokesperson?

I also did not know that the depiction of child rape is illegal - would you care to cite the law that states that this is so?

Read any legal document you'll see the use of block capitals where they REALLY WANT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION. You clearly do not pay attention when you read what I have written.

Semantics are trivial. It's playing word games and doesn't get to the actual meaningful substance. Like the semantic link between "statutory rape" and "rape".

There is no ambiguity about rape. This is getting totally off topic.

"Actually, you did."

Where. You have made this allegation before and I have shot it down, and here you are making it again.

"You said that Jim was only talking about rape between adults."

And he WAS. He never mentioned any paedophilia nor the aspect of under-age victims. He only talks about scenarios with adults. I am not his spokesman... I merely watch the same video you did.

"Why is it that rape involving children should not be discussed here?"

You have got to be shitting me. When the very body of what you quote me from says "You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility." And we are talking about the DEPICTION of rape in video games. If you can't depict it, then I'm not going to discuss it. My opinion on this is final: no child porn.

Lilani:The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

That's a very poor assumption. Given the number of people living today who have survived wars, I would not be surprised if they outnumbered living rape victims.

Lilani:The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions.

Millions of people remain traumatised by World Wars 1 and 2. Plenty of people among my family and friends lost loved ones in those wars. Does that mean games depicting those wars are "asinine expressions" that take advantage of people's personal traumas?

I think to a degree, yes it is monopolizing on other people's traumas. And in many cases trivializing. But, there are reasons to have wars and violence as far as narrative. It isn't just about people killing people, it's about the larger stories and dramas at play. There are lots of stories to tell and emotions and moral situations to explore. With rape, there aren't really any other emotions you can draw on. There's the insane level of evil and disregard for humanity of the rapist, and there's the utter torment of the victim. There isn't anything dramatic or subversive there. It isn't a story, it's a travesty.

It is possible to pay honor to those who participated in war with movies and games that have war. You can't really pay honor to those who were raped by making movies and games that include rape. They are similar in the areas of trauma to be sure, but war is so much more complicated. Rape is horribly simple.